Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:43:12 +0100 | From | "Borislav Petkov" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][RESEND] checkpatch: Add warning for p0-patches |
| |
Hi Wolfram,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de> wrote: > Hi Boris, > >> --- /dev/null 2008-11-09 02:46:02.525014459 +0100 >> +++ arch/x86/kernel/tsc_resync.c 2008-11-14 07:22:34.000000000 +0100 >> @@ -0,0 +1 @@ >> +This is a new file >> >> and, as you can see, it is a -p0 patch. Now, in the code you do: >> >> if ($tree && -e "$root/$p1_prefix") { >> WARN("Patch prefix '$p1_prefix' exists. Is it maybe a p0-patch?\n"); >> >> and the "$root/$p1_prefix" won't exist - as a matter of fact - would >> lose its "arch" part due to the regex before and the if-condition won't >> trigger. > > Careful. My approach is a bit different (inverse so to say) from yours > which I missed back then. $p1_prefix is the part which _was_ cut off and > it is wrong if it _does_ exist. See: > > - $realfile =~ s@^[^/]*/@@; > + $realfile =~ s@^([^/]*)/@@; > + > + $p1_prefix = $1;
Doh, of course. I _did_ misinterpret the $p1_prefix, sorry. I was too concentrated on the $realfile mangling.
> (So, a way to fool this algorithm is to give your kernel root dir the > same name as a directory inside the root dir, like: > > --- drivers.orig/drivers/... > +++ drivers/drivers/... > > This will generate a false positive. Oh, well...) > > I decided to go this way intentionally to handle the new file problem. > So, in your case (I tried) it will cut off "arch", find the "arch" > directory and will complain. (Did you actually apply this patch? ;)) > > I thought the variable name 'p1_prefix' would speak for itself, but as > you misinterpreted it, maybe it should be renamed?
No, keep it that way, for others who _can_ read, unlike me :).
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris
| |